[mayfair35]

Mr. Stadler:
I was unaware of the Dog Fights forum or I would have addressed your comments earlier. With reference to the 26 July 1944 attack, may I remind you, I WAS THERE! You were not and neither were 99% of those offering comments. They have read books and reports, and in some instances chatted with Luftwaffe members. In many instances, these sources provided good and correct information but not always. Thus in recreating a specific action, many conclusions are the result of speculation. Let me point out that during some of our mission debriefings we had different opinions among the pilots as to exactly what happened during the mission so I doubt individuals who were not there can provide conclusions that are more valid. When someone who was not there tells me I did not see what I saw, it tends to raise my ire. Regardless of your conclusion, I saw 8 aircraft line abreast and 8 rows deep. There were clearly not in any type of wedge formation. Consider this: if you saw a truck smash into a car and years later, someone told you that was not what you saw, that the car smashed into the truck, what would your reaction be?? Mine too!
I could relate the encounter from first spotting the “bogies” as I wrote it in detail many years ago for my children, but I believe it is too lengthy for this site and doubt it would change your mind but perhaps correct some of the details presented in the Dog Fight report..
Dog Fights did a good job in presenting the encounter but unfortunately some errors did creep in. I understand this as they do not have the funds or time to evaluate and research every aspect of the incidents they portray. The overall themes they produce are excellent!
As an example, Dog Fights showed only our squadron but the other two squadrons were close by. In addition, only one squadron of Bombers is shown but of course there were 25 to 28 bombers in the 301st Bomb Group formation, which bore the brunt of the FW-190 attacks. Three of the seven aircraft in the 419th Bomb Squadron, which was the last squadron in the formation, were shot down.
Please note that originally I called out “64 bogies” not 64 FW-190s. Only during my attack when I was concentrating my fire on the first two rows of FW-190s in an attempt to break up the formation did I presume they were all FW-190s. This was an assumption on my part, as I did not pay attention to the last 6 rows of aircraft. From my first sighting, it appeared they were all the same type aircraft but from the information you and others have provided, this must be incorrect. The last part of the box of 64 planes may have been Me-109s as we also claimed 4 Me-109s not including mine. I do know, however, that the first two rows were FW-190s and the two aircraft I attacked above the formation were also FW-190s.
However this was close to Hungary and I have a book (unfortunately in Hungarian) with a chart that has headings of Me-190G-6, Me-210, Me-410, and FW-190 from which I speculate the Hungarian AF might have had a number of FW-190s. I knew a Hungarian ace quite well who mentioned attempts by them to coordinate missions with the Germans, thus I wonder if some Hungarian FW-190s could have been in this attack?
You state that the Germans never used such formations. Were you referring to the line abreast portion or did you mean they never used 64 aircraft in such a formation? They clearly used line abreast formations that have been mentioned in various books and forums.
In my diving attack, I noticed several large explosions among the B-17s; much larger than 20mm bursts, and I presume larger than that produced by 30mm? The FW-190 models
A-6/R-6 and A-7/R-6, Pulk-Zerstörer had mortars under their wings, and field modifications could have mounted them on other models. I imagine these mortars would have produced quite large explosions. Similar to what I saw?? It could also explain the use of this type of line abreast formation since the mortars had no guidance system and this formation should produce a denser pattern of missiles than a single ship. This of course is pure speculation on my part but there were large explosions among the B-17s.
Are you sure that all the II/JG300 aircraft had extra armor on their birds? I believe they had armor below their seats as every time I fired at the one diving on me, he would turn 180° and present his belly to me. One of our aces mentioned a wild turning fight he had in a narrow canyon with a FW and in my first encounter with the two FWs above the fight, they seemed to have no problem maneuvering.
I do not know when or where the B-24s you referenced were lost, but probably not as a part of this attack. The closest 24 Group was the 55th BG, which was ahead of the 5th Wing. At 1200 hours, 8 Me-109s made a pass at our B-24s. Two of the Me-109s were destroyed on this pass. Our mission report states that during our attack on the 64 bogies, 8 FW-190s and
3 Me-109s were destroyed and 4 more Me-109s damaged. Please note that we only claimed 8 FW-190s destroyed not the 9 you cited. I might mention that during my high speed firing pass at the FW-190s, as I reached the bottom of my pass and skimmed over the top of them, two FW-190s (I believe the 2nd and 5th from the left side) pulled up and out of the formation. In fact, number 5 man and I passed close enough to almost shake hands as I started up on my yo yo.
When I first spotted the 64 bogies from almost directly above, I had a plan view from an estimated 10,000 feet above them. I have no way of telling if they were stacked or in a level formation. It is possible that Me-109s were bringing up the rear. However, I wonder why 109s would be flying line abreast rather than a 4 finger formation.
I don’t understand your comment that it would have been more accurate to provide an overall situation report for 26 July 1944. Our mission report confirms all the statistics quoted and of course does not go into details of each individual combat. Individual details are provided on a Combat Claims Form and unfortunately are often quite inaccurate being prepared from a verbal interview and notes; often several days later.
My Me-109 victory also has some problems but since you did not question it, I will not address the errors in its depiction.
Art Fiedler, 317th FS; 325th FG